Karnataka High Court
Mirle Varadaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35788
WP No. 31337 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
WRIT PETITION No. 31337 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MIRLE VARADARAJ
S/O LATE BORE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YERS
R/AT No.544, 5TH MAIN
KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN
BENGALURU-560 060.
2. SMT. GIRIJA RAJ
W/O MIRLE VARADARAJU
R/AT # 544, 5TH MAIN
KENGERI SATELITE TOWN
BANGALORE - 560 020.
3. R MANJUNATH
R/AT # 544 5TH MAIN
KENGERI SATELITE TOWN
BANGALORE -560 020.
Digitally signed 4. N R NAGARAJU
by NANDINI B G S/O LATE K RAMEGOWDA
Location: high R/AT HANUMANTHA NAGAR
court of
karnataka NELAMANGALA PSOT
SRIRANGA PATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 807.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE - V.C)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION
BANGALORE - 560 098.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35788
WP No. 31337 of 2019
2. H ANANDA
S/O SRI V HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
# 544 2ND STAGE,
REMCO (BHEL) HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP SOCIETY
PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 098.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K P YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI N UDAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
PERATAINING TO THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME No.0349/2018
DATED 23.12.2018 (ANNEXURE-A AND B) AND QUASH THE FIR
COMPLAINT DATED 23.12.2018 IN CRIME No.0349/2018
REGISTERED BY THE R-1 AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 120B, 465, 468, 471, 420 AND 447
R/W 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 ("THE CODE") PENDING
BEFORE THE HON'BLE 3RD ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE COURT, BANGLAORE (ANNEXURES-A AND B).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 4 have filed
this petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings
registered in Crime No.349/2018 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
120B, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 447 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:35788
2. Brief facts of the case are that; respondent
No.2 is the informant filed the first information against
accused Nos.1 to 12 alleging commission of the offences
as stated above. It is stated that the informant has
purchased site No.544 situated in II Stage, REMCO BHEL
Layout, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Pattanagere Village,
Bengaluru, which belongs to REMCO (BHEL) House
Building Co-Operative Society (for brevity hereinafter
referred to as "the Society") under the registered sale
deed and since then he is in exclusive possession and
enjoyment of the property. On 28.08.2018 when the
informant was cleaning his site, accused Nos.1 to 6 have
illegally trespassed over the property, criminally
intimidated him to cause death. It is stated that the
accused are involved in goonda activities and they are land
mafias indulged in forging the documents. Accused Nos.7
to 12 being the officials have joined hands with accused
Nos.1 to 6 and they criminally conspired to commit the
offences. Therefore, the informant requested the police to
register the case and to initiate action. Accordingly, F.I.R
NC: 2024:KHC:35788
came to be registered and the investigation was
undertaken. In the meanwhile, the petitioners being
accused Nos.1 to 4 have approached this Court for
quashing the F.I.R and the criminal proceedings initiated
against them.
3. Heard Sri.Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High
Court Government Pleader for R1. Learned counsel for
respondent No.2 is absent. There is no representation.
Hence, his arguments is taken as NIL. Perused the
materials on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that the extent of the land including the land referred to
by the informant were acquired for the benefit of the
Society for the purpose of forming lay-out. The said
acquisition was challenged by the land owners before this
Court in W.P.No.1775/1981. This Court had allowed the
writ petition as per the order dated 18.06.2019 and the
acquisition of the land was quashed. Even when the
NC: 2024:KHC:35788
order of this Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.12535-37 of
1991, the same came to be dismissed as per order dated
21.02.1995. The Hon'ble Apex Court made it clear that as
a result of quashing of the land acquisition proceedings
including the notifications in question, the possession of
the land is to be restored to the respective owners,
irrespective of the fact whether they have challenged the
acquisition of the land or not. Further direction was also
issued that, on restoration of possession of the land to the
erstwhile owners, they shall refund the amounts received
by them as compensation. Learned counsel submits that
as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
erstwhile land owners have deposited the amount received
by them as compensation and the Society accepted
acquisition of the land and sought for return of the amount
which it has deposited towards the cost of acquisition. The
Society has also executed an indemnity bond for receiving
the costs for which it is entitled to. However, the Society
even after accepting quashing of the acquisition
NC: 2024:KHC:35788
proceedings, went on executing the sale deeds in favor of
various persons.
5. Learned counsel submitted that in the
meantime, the erstwhile owners who got possession of the
property sold 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.70 in favour of
one Smt.Sujaya under the registered sale deed dated
29.10.2004. The said Smt.Sujaya inturn sold 18 guntas of
land as per Annexure-K2 in favour of accused No.1 /
petitioner No.1 under the registered sale deed dated
15.12.2010. Later, accused No.1 converted the land into
non-agricultural one and a private lay out was formed.
Different sites were sold to various persons. The site in
question referred by the informant was never sold in
favour of the vendor of the informant. All these facts are
borne out in the records and admitted by the informant. A
complaint came to be filed against the petitioners -
accused Nos.1 to 4. Accused No.2 is wife of accused No.1
and accused No.3 is son-in-law and accused No.4 is
brother-in-law of accused No.1. There is no prima facie
NC: 2024:KHC:35788
material to constitute any of the offences as alleged.
According to respondent No.2, he is the purchaser of the
site in question from the subsequent purchaser from the
Society which had no title to pass on to the purchasers
under the sale deed. Therefore, registration of the
criminal case is nothing but abuse of process of law and
accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition and
quashing the criminal proceedings.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader admits
the facts narrated by the learned counsel for the
petitioners. However, submits that several litigations are
pending in connection with the sites formed in the vast
extent of land which was the subject matter of the
acquisition and therefore, the F.I.R came to be registered
and the Investigating Officer will investigate the matter.
Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. In view of the rival contentions raised by both
the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration
is;
NC: 2024:KHC:35788
"Whether the petitioners have made out any
ground to allow the petition and to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against them?"
My answer to the above point is in the affirmative for
the following;
REASONS
8. The facts narrated by the learned counsel for
the petitioners regarding acquisition of the vast extent of
land including Sy.No.70 of the Pattanagere village for the
benefit of the Society is not in dispute. It is also not
disputed by the learned High Court Government Pleader
that the said acquisition proceedings was quashed by this
Court in W.P.No.1775/1981. The order of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the Special Leave petition is produced as per
Annexure-C, wherein the between REMCO (BHEL) House
Building Co-operative Society Buildings Vs.
Neelakanthaiah and Others1, which came to be
Special Leave Petition Nos.12535-37 of 1991
NC: 2024:KHC:35788
dismissed by issuing specific direction in Paragraph Nos.35
and 36 which reads as under;
"35. These special leave petitions have been filed
against the judgment of the High Court, quashing the
notifications under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, on the ground that the notifications
had been issued at the instance of the agent,
appointed by the petitioner society. The learned
counsel, appearing for the petitioner, could not point
out as to how the facts of the present case are dif-
ferent from the facts of the H.M.T. House Building
Society, so far this aspect is concerned. He has,
however, pointed out that in the present case, an
order had been issued by the State Government
granting prior approval. In this connection, reference
was made to an order dated 9.8.1984 by which it is
said that the Government had granted prior approval
for the acquisition of the lands in question. According
to us, an order dated 9.8.1984 cannot be an order
under Section 3(f)(vi) because the definition of
'public purpose' which was introduced by Act 68 of
1984 came in force with effect from 24.9.1984. As
such there was no occasion for the State
Government to exercise power under Section 3(f)
(vi) on 9.8.1984. Any such order must be in terms of
Section 39 read with Section 40 of Part VII of the
Act, which part is applicable when acquisition of land
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35788
is made for companies. It is surprising as to how the
present House Building Co-op. Society was being
treated even as a company on 9.8.1984, because the
new definition of company was also introduced in
Section 3(e) with effect from 24.9.1984. Accordingly,
there is no merit in these special leave petitions,
which are dismissed. No costs.
36. In the appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 11482-
90 of 1991, after the dismissal of the appeals a
direction has been given that as a result of the
quashing of the land acquisition proceedings
including the notifications in question, the possession
of the land shall be restored to the respective land
owners irrespective of the fact whether they had
challenged the acquisition of their lands or not. A
further direction has been given that on restoration
of the possession to the land owners, they shall
refund the amounts received by them as
compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands.
We issue a similar direction even in this case. The
petitioner, the respondents and the State
Government including all concerned
authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid
directions at an early date."
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35788
9. Thus, the order quashing the acquisition
proceedings has reached finality with a specific direction to
the erstwhile owners to re-deposit the compensation
amount which they have received and to take possession
of the property.
10. It is the specific contention of respondent No.2
that he had purchased the site referred to in the complaint
from the erstwhile purchaser who traces his title through
the Society. When the Society itself has no title
whatsoever, respondent No.2 cannot contend that the
petitioners have committed any offence as stated above.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my
attention to the letter dated 19.01.2004 produced as per
Annexure-G2 whereunder, the Society has accepted
quashing of the acquisition proceedings and demanded
back the amount that is already deposited with the Special
Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of the property.
Annexure-G3 is the copy of the indemnity bond executed
by the Society for receiving the costs of acquisition after
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35788
the direction by the Hon'ble Apex Court. All these material
prima facie discloses that the land which was the subject
matter of the acquisition was already restored to the
erstwhile owners.
11. It is the specific contention of the petitioners
that the petitioners have purchased 18 guntas of land in
Sy.No.70 of Pattanagere village for forming private lay-out
from its owner Smt.Sujaya and various sites were formed
in it and one such site referred was said to have been sold
to Sri.Rajashekara Reddy, who inturn sold the same to the
subsequent purchasers under various sale deeds.
12. Under such circumstances, I do find
considerable force in the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners. Prima facie, the dispute
between the informant and the petitioner is of civil nature
to establish their respective rights over the property in
question. Under such circumstances, initiation of
proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court.
Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35788
answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The criminal proceedings in Crime
No.349/2018 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police
Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 120B, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 447 r/w
Section 149 of IPC is hereby quashed as against
petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 4.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
GH
